LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker
- Thread starter Brainster
- Start date
- Status
At this point it's basically a name recognition poll.
Gillibrand was on Van Jones' program this weekend. I'm increasingly convinced she's the best candidate to defeat Trump. She sounds genuine in a way the other women contenders do not. She sounds like a person with convictions. She's confident. Her overall presentation is out of casting central.
The Trump situation is so dire I don't even care that she flaunted her faith. Right now, that's a feature, not a bug.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
That I don't deny. Campaigning hasn't begun yet in earnest.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 22,312
She's getting a lot of pushback for a tone-deaf tweet:
Nate Silver had a pretty good response:
The problem for Gillibrand is that she's positioned herself as a sensible moderate, but that is not what the Democrats are going to be looking for in 2020.
Imagine a future where a single tone-deaf tweet could keep a person from being POTUS. God, I hope we get there . . .
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Instead we have a world where a single tone-deaf tweet can stop you, but a hundred thousand or so guarantees success...
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 35,081
Elizabeth Warren just threw her hat into the race. Get ready for lots of lies about Warren claiming to be Chief of the Cherokee nation.
Indeed.
If this "Pocahontas" thing is the worst one can say about Warren, she must be a very good candidate.
I fully trust the US media to give this fake issue the same attention they give the numerous Trump scandals, because reasons ...
This being said, I doubt she will win the nomination (but who really knows more than a year before the first primaries and caucuses).
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Trump is president. The normal rules of how these things work is completely out the window.
The last Democratic primary with many candidates was in 1992.
Now, with up to 8 senators, a former vice-president, a few (former) governors or mayors, at least 2 (former) House members, and maybe the odd billionaire who could join the race, I wonder what normal rules would prescribe.
And yes, with Trump in the WH and as expected opponent, nothing will be anywhere "normal".
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Please... please don't let her get the nom. Its all we'll hear for an entire year. If even 1% of swing voters are persuaded by that absolute nonsense in certain swing states it could mean Trump back in office for 4 years. And no, its absolutely not fair.
Top of the ticket should be the absolute best person to get swing voters and moderates. I'm not sure who that is, although every time I see Gillibrand interviewed I like her. Bottom of the ticket should be a progressive to get the left wing to get out and vote. Beto is probably the best candidate there.
Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee?
From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive.
At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar.
Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020?
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Isn't the problem that a similar phony issue will be found for whoever will be the nominee?
From what I see on Twitter, the Bernie bros sure don't consider Beto a progressive.
At this early stage, my favourite ticket is Harris/Brown, but that would cost the Democrats one possibly crucial Senate seat. So I'll settle for Harris/Klobuchar.
Nothing wrong with Gillibrand/Beto, mind you, but wouldn't it be great if Beto tries to beat Cornyn in 2020?
Hmm, that might just be possible. Is Cornyn less popular than Cruz (I think so)? Will a presidential election mean more Republicans going to the polls in Texas than in 2018, or mean more Democrats (probably the former). And also I do agree, Beto isn't super left wing really. Its more the picture that has been painted of him by the right. But I would've thought he's far enough to get the left wingers out to vote, maybe I'm wrong.
Last edited:
Yes phony as can be. But, fair or not, it's worse when the candidate has ineptly played into the negative characterization.
I'm with lobosrul5. The situation is too dire and Warren is too high-risk.
Does this really even mean anything? She's just "throwing her hat in the ring" as it's been called. This seems like fishing for data on how much support she thinks she could get then anything else.
I mean this whole cycle where all the major moves and shakers from the major parties do the whole coy "Maybe I will run, maybe I won't" thing with reports for months and then way more then are ever going to have viable campaigns "Announce they are going to run" but start dropping out almost immediately when they don't get the positive feedback the were hoping for just strikes me as rather silly.
99% of the population is already 100% certain if they are going to vote for a Democrat or Republican and very little that can or will happen in the next year is going to change that and I'd bet good money the Dems are already like... mostly sure who they want to run and are basically just waiting for the right place in the campaign cycle to let their use base now who they are going to be voting for in November.
I mean this whole cycle where all the major moves and shakers from the major parties do the whole coy "Maybe I will run, maybe I won't" thing with reports for months and then way more then are ever going to have viable campaigns "Announce they are going to run" but start dropping out almost immediately when they don't get the positive feedback the were hoping for just strikes me as rather silly.
99% of the population is already 100% certain if they are going to vote for a Democrat or Republican and very little that can or will happen in the next year is going to change that and I'd bet good money the Dems are already like... mostly sure who they want to run and are basically just waiting for the right place in the campaign cycle to let their use base now who they are going to be voting for in November.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I don't think its that much. Probably more like 90% that right now are just absolutely not going to be persuaded to switch from R to D or vice versa. However, more importantly is the amount of people who might be convinced to get out and vote rather than being apathetic and just staying at home, or voting 3rd party instead of R/D.
ETA: of course, nationwide it doesn't really matter. It matters how many voters in Florida, Penn, Michigan, and Wisconsin can be persuaded one way or the other. Oh and Nevada and Arizona I guess too.
Last edited:
Confession. I'd put money on the table right now that fewer people who were eligible to vote in 2016 and didn't voting in 2020 then people who switch parties from D to R or vice versa between 2016 and 2020.
"Non-voter" is almost like it's own party at this point with the same level of heel dug in tribalism.
A huge wave of new voters is about as likely as a bunch of people from the other side coming to yours at this point.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I'm having trouble parsing your first paragraph: are you saying proportionality fewer people will vote in 2020 than in 2016? I think the opposite will happen actually. More people in my circle of acquaintances talk about politics now than I can ever remember. That should translate to more people going to the polls.
The thing is there doesn't need to be a huge wave. The Dems lost by no more than about 1% in 4 states. All they need to do is take 3 of them and they win in 2020. Oh and they need to hold on to the ones they took but I can't see any states going from D to R in 2020 compared to 2016. We're talking tiny margins in the right places here, everything legitimate that can be done to ensure that happens needs to be done.
I'm saying if I'm the Dems I put the odds of pulling in "non-voters" at about the same as pulling in Republicans, not a lot. The idea that energy spent trying to pull in non-voters is any more or less wasted then energy pulling in Republicans doesn't ring true to me.
"But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections.
2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election.
"But everyone I know is so passionate about politics now, that just has to translate to higher turnout" has been the narrative for the last 2 or 3 elections.
2020 is going to be a battle of the margins, just like every other election.
- Status